In Mutliplayer do you think it is cheating...

[uat2d]

My brother only played Civ4 with me a couple of times, always starting on the Modern Era.

He enjoyed playing the first ones, specially one on a Terra map where he settled the whole new world while I conquered the one. Eventually he got dogpiled (Aggressive AIs on) and I had to save the day by razing Hannibal's land and nuking Augustus, even though my brother basically lost everything on the old world and even moved his capital to the new one. Then more nukes flied around till we signed a PA and won by Dom.

Although, as exciting as that might have been for him, he never again playing with me since I once rushed him on an Arquipelago map on like turn 50 with a stack of Panzers. He was up to 5 cities while I still had my initial 3, but one Marine per city was no match for ~10 panzers + battleship bombardment & fighter strikes. I razed his capital and killed him off first than anyone else in less than 10 turns. He never again agreed to play with me, now he says that Civ is no fun.

 

[AJ11]

I think I agree with TMIT. When I play MP games with my brother, I tend to just leave him alone. However, if he starts meddling in my affairs, or amassing an enourmous religious following, I will take steps to take him down a few notches, or if it continues, capitulate him so he can't meddle as much. Usually soon after he capitulates, however, he "gets bored" of the game and either quits or starts a new game. This really annoys me, as it is basically a one-player game then and I am forced to comply if I want to continue playing with him.

These types of people ae no fun to play with, nor are people who falsely accuse you of cheating or teaming them when you start winning (which my brother also does). The people who play the game to screw specific people or to play kingmaker or any other annoying thing should all play a game with each other, realize how annoying all the stuff they do is, and then get their act together and play like an adult, and if they lose, well, then they should just remember how it feels so when they get better at it and win, they don't get a big head and increase their annoying-ness more. What those people need to get through their heads is that when they throw a "hissy fit", no one is going to say, "oh, I'm sorry, I am totally in the WRONG, I should not have been TRYING to win like that, here, it's YOUR place to win." No, everyone will think they are completely immature, even if they don't voice that opinion. The people that do this, IMO, are either totally self-centered or lost in VR.

And for those of you asking why I even play with my brother, I can't use the internet with Civ, so it's him or my 8 year old sister.

You'll get better mileage out of your 8 year old sister, by the sounds of it. Certainly less complaining when you are winning if you leave her alone.

 

[Nick Carpathia]

...teaming them when you start winning (which my brother also does)...

There is nothing wrong with that. You are almost morally obligated to dogpile #1, anything else basically hands them a victory if they don't screw up. The difference is that you need to make a good-faith effort to try to win yourself.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

There is nothing wrong with that. You are almost morally obligated to dogpile #1, anything else basically hands them a victory if they don't screw up. The difference is that you need to make a good-faith effort to try to win yourself.

+1. Sometimes games become hopeless but at that point it's probably fair to call it. Before that, players should try to win.

 

[AJ11]

There is nothing wrong with that.

Says the guy who's handle is the anti-Christ himself

 

[thecaesar]

There is nothing wrong with that. You are almost morally obligated to dogpile #1, anything else basically hands them a victory if they don't screw up. The difference is that you need to make a good-faith effort to try to win yourself.

Yes, I know; he accuses me of being unfair when I do this to him, mostly because his method tends to be "leave your capital defended by one archer and then wonder spam through the ancient and classical ages, then after that tech insanely fast and then take down others one by one with small but advanced military.

 

[uat2d]

Yes, I know; he accuses me of being unfair when I do this to him, mostly because his method tends to be "leave your capital defended by one archer and then wonder spam through the ancient and classical ages, then after that tech insanely fast and then take down others one by one with small but advanced military.

I'd love to rush him with chariots or horse archers

 

[AJ11]

Yes, I know; he accuses me of being unfair when I do this to him, mostly because his method tends to be "leave your capital defended by one archer and then wonder spam through the ancient and classical ages, then after that tech insanely fast and then take down others one by one with small but advanced military.

I used to play like that in Age of Empires 2. Then I started playing against real people instead of the AI. My time to Feudal went from 27 minutes to 13/14. Your brother sounds like me vs the AoE AI...

 

[Nick Carpathia]

So, the classic builder style that most new players gravitate towards. Nothing wrong with that, investing into early economy sets you up for the mid-late game, as it gives you the tech and production for later units. The downside is that you're extremely vulnerable to any early aggression, and you'd better be sure you can hold off greedy eyes with diplomacy.

If anything, I think it's quite easy to transition from max economy to max production, thanks to slavery letting you rush out units. Still better than Civ5, as there are some real costs to rushing out units .ie. poor commerce:hammer efficiency, whip anger, etc.

 

[uat2d]

They can work either way, lots of hammers into gold or research by building it or lots of commerce into hammers by rush buying.

All you need is the right tech or the right civic.

 

[yturk39]

By the way, ALL players who will, from a losing position, randomly prop up one side using the TT mechanic are parasite idiot trolls and don't belong in MP games. Don't randomly king-make! Learn how to play the game!

I don't agree with this at all. If I were in such a game, and to my dismay, a human rival had done this (given techs to a mutual rival in a way that suddenly and unexpectedly threw off my expectations of how the game balance would play out), I'd look at it as failed diplomacy on my part. Maybe I could have bargained for these techs myself a little better, or treated that player with more respect, or helped him when he needed it instead of ruthlessly dismissing him as "irrelevant" because I perceived him to be in a "losing position".

It's not over 'til it's over, my friend. Until a player's Civ dies off, anything is fair game, because until then, the player hasn't "lost".

"Strike me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine...and trade away all of my Force (techs) to someone (or EVERYONE) I like better than you."

 

[TheMeInTeam]

^ I will not play with people who employ trash tactics like de-facto vassals (when the setting is off) instead of trying to actually win. Are you not familiar with the term "king making", or are you saying that it is OK to be a king maker in a game? Surely, you're not going to claim the latter...right?

If it "isn't over until it's over", then try to win. If it IS over for a civ, the leader of that civ should not be a douche and just randomly prop up other civs.

Keep in mind, this position has nothing to do with OP situation, where a "friend" is breaking the spirit of the deal and complaining when the person making the deal doesn't honor complete nonsense.

 

[AJ11]

^ I will not play with people who employ trash tactics like de-facto vassals (when the setting is off) instead of trying to actually win. Are you not familiar with the term "king making", or are you saying that it is OK to be a king maker in a game? Surely, you're not going to claim the latter...right?

If it "isn't over until it's over", then try to win. If it IS over for a civ, the leader of that civ should not be a douche and just randomly prop up other civs.

Keep in mind, this position has nothing to do with OP situation, where a "friend" is breaking the spirit of the deal and complaining when the person making the deal doesn't honor complete nonsense.

Somehow, I do not believe that YOU, TMIT, understand the term "king maker".

It is not only entirely possible but incredibly PROBABLE that the third most powerful civ will become the kingmaker if either of the two top civs do not have a run away power advantage. Whoever of the top two that the third civ backs will be the top dog, the king. Hence, the third civ is the king maker. To say that the third civ MUST back the top civ is either arrogance or just plain sour grapes. There is no reason why the third civ should not back the number two civ other than the first civ throwing a tanty.

King makers happen all the time IRL. Take a look at recent elections in Australia and New Zealand. To say that playing king maker is somehow wrong is ridiculous. It is neither right nor wrong, good nor bad. It just is. So, yes, it is perfectly legitimate and fine, with absolutely no moral dilemma, for someone to be a king maker. It happens, usually by default. Are you truly expecting the third civ, seeing as he is the king maker through happenstance (i.e., he just happened to be the third most powerful), to quit the game and allow the top two to fight it out so as to not look like what you term a "douche"? In that case, why bother having more than two players in any MP game? Your stance is as illogical as it is ridiculous.

Maybe it is my background in almost purely MP games like Age of Empires talking, but once again, I am struck by how you assume that things will always go your way. If it doesn't you will rant and rave against it and insinuate that the other person is playing the game "wrong" or is an utter asshat because they do something that is out of your control. Human interaction (which is what MP is) is complex and practically impossible to predict. You certainly won't be able to control it, particularly over a medium as anonymous as the Internet.

 

[strijder20]

Somehow, I do not believe that YOU, TMIT, understand the term "king maker".

It is not only entirely possible but incredibly PROBABLE that the third most powerful civ will become the kingmaker if either of the two top civs do not have a run away power advantage. Whoever of the top two that the third civ backs will be the top dog, the king. Hence, the third civ is the king maker. To say that the third civ MUST back the top civ is either arrogance or just plain sour grapes. There is no reason why the third civ should not back the number two civ other than the first civ throwing a tanty.

King makers happen all the time IRL. Take a look at recent elections in Australia and New Zealand. To say that playing king maker is somehow wrong is ridiculous. It is neither right nor wrong, good nor bad. It just is. So, yes, it is perfectly legitimate and fine, with absolutely no moral dilemma, for someone to be a king maker. It happens, usually by default. Are you truly expecting the third civ, seeing as he is the king maker through happenstance (i.e., he just happened to be the third most powerful), to quit the game and allow the top two to fight it out so as to not look like what you term a "douche"? In that case, why bother having more than two players in any MP game? Your stance is as illogical as it is ridiculous.

Maybe it is my background in almost purely MP games like Age of Empires talking, but once again, I am struck by how you assume that things will always go your way. If it doesn't you will rant and rave against it and insinuate that the other person is playing the game "wrong" or is an utter asshat because they do something that is out of your control. Human interaction (which is what MP is) is complex and practically impossible to predict. You certainly won't be able to control it, particularly over a medium as anonymous as the Internet.

Let's assume that everyone who is playing civilization is trying to win the game.
Giving all your techs away to someone is actually DECREASING the chance of winning, as that person will be 'king'.

 

[AJ11]

Let's assume that everyone who is playing civilization is trying to win the game.
Giving all your techs away to someone is actually DECREASING the chance of winning, as that person will be 'king'.

And what is your point? It is not illegal to do so, and it is certainly not illogical to do so when you have no chance of winning and prefer a particular person to win the game. Let's say, for example, that you, me, TMIT, and yturk39 are in a game. TMIT gave me a beating because of his teh uber-strategiezz. I am in no position to win. It is really, between you and TMIT because both yturk and myself copped a beating from the both of you.

Now, I don't like TMIT because he just took all my beautiful cities. I want him to lose. So, I give all my techs to you because you are the only one with a reasonable chance of beating him. In the meantime, I do what I can to survive, and maybe come back with a bit of vengeance when TMIT isn't expecting it (assuming he doesn't finish me off). Yturk might take it into his head to do the same for TMIT because you beat him up.

Either way, I don't see the problem. Neither Yturk nor myself are AI and therefore MUST follow our "programming" and hoard techs. That is where TMIT fails. He assumes that the "only" way to play the game is to play it like the AI. Regardless of whether you are winning or not, you must hoard techs or gold. Even if you are down to 1 city and have a horde of enemy units right outside your walls, you must remain defiant and think that you can win because you are not allowed to think otherwise.

That is complete BS, and actually shows that the programmers of Civ4 doesn't actually know how MP works. In AoE, the AI actually DO give away all of its resources to someone (usually an ally) before it quits in defeat. Why? Because that is what a real human player would do. The programmers thought of it and put it into the game.

Let me repeat: In MP, expecting and demanding that players act like the AI is a recipe for defeat and angst.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

It is not only entirely possible but incredibly PROBABLE that the third most powerful civ will become the kingmaker if either of the two top civs do not have a run away power advantage. Whoever of the top two that the third civ backs will be the top dog, the king.

#3 has a responsibility to try to win the game, not to force a side to win other than himself and lose on purpose.

And I'm not talking about the conduct of #3 anyway.

King makers happen all the time IRL.

I do not accept IRL trash theories in gameplay arguments. News flash: the GAME isn't "IRL".

But what bothers me is not when the actions of a player lead another to victory, but when a player does not try to win the game but rather just tries to screw someone.

Maybe it is my background in almost purely MP games like Age of Empires talking, but once again, I am struck by how you assume that things will always go your way.

. I made no such assumption, nor claimed it. I'm calling players who will hurt their win chances just to screw one side or prop up another unworthy of competitive MP. You still haven't refuted this btw.

complex and practically impossible to predict

There's still something subpar about players joining a game with win conditions and then not pursuing them.

Either way, I don't see the problem. Neither Yturk nor myself are AI and therefore MUST follow our "programming" and hoard techs. That is where TMIT fails. He assumes that the "only" way to play the game is to play it like the AI.

This is where you are wrong. The only way to play is to try to win the game. This is something the fail AI pointedly does NOT do, and is the entire point of MP.

If you feel like you can actually win the game by gifting techs, that's fine. If you're just doing it to spite the player that beat you straight up, that's AI behavior, not human behavior. It has not place in competitive settings.

Let me repeat: In MP, expecting and demanding that players act like the AI is a recipe for defeat and angst.

And yet, in your examples you say the humans should act like the AI rather than try to win. Dodgy at best.

 

[uat2d]

If we're talking about a MP game with TT on, then I assume PA are also on.

If that's the case, then the losing human player can just PA his friend and by doing so gifting him everything he can to at least make sure his enemy doesn't win.

I don't see much of a problem with it, it's what you get from playing with TT on in MP, if someone can't win, they'll at least try to make sure the person who made it impossible for them can't win as well.

Sure, if I was the winning player, I'd be pissed as well as TMIT seems to be, but otherwise, the winning player would just steamroll everyone else. But honestly, in a game with diplomacy and war with human players, you're bound to have people screwing with each other the best they can.

It just wouldn't be multiplayer if you didn't have the human backstabbing, treachery and douche element. If you think otherwise, you should stick with dumb AIs which, once you know its mechanisms, stop proving themselves to be hard to understand and overcome.

Heck, even in Free-for-All games in Modern Warfare 2, where we had mics, my friends and I, and a couple of times even complete randoms, stopped killing each other just to make sure the boosters in the lobby didn't get away with the game!

If there's a player just running away and making it impossible for everybody else (cheating or not), you know everyone else will just stop fighting each other and gang up on the one who's going to win the game. And I don't think that's a douche move, I believe that's just how we work.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Heck, even in Free-for-All games in Modern Warfare 2, where we had mics, my friends and I, and a couple of times even complete randoms, stopped killing each other just to make sure the boosters in the lobby didn't get away with the game!

Boosters are gaming trash/filth that are only slightly better than people who hack/cheat.

 

[AJ11]

#3 has a responsibility to try to win the game, not to force a side to win other than himself and lose on purpose.

And I'm not talking about the conduct of #3 anyway.

I do not accept IRL trash theories in gameplay arguments. News flash: the GAME isn't "IRL".

But what bothers me is not when the actions of a player lead another to victory, but when a player does not try to win the game but rather just tries to screw someone.

. I made no such assumption, nor claimed it. I'm calling players who will hurt their win chances just to screw one side or prop up another unworthy of competitive MP. You still haven't refuted this btw.

There's still something subpar about players joining a game with win conditions and then not pursuing them.

This is where you are wrong. The only way to play is to try to win the game. This is something the fail AI pointedly does NOT do, and is the entire point of MP.

If you feel like you can actually win the game by gifting techs, that's fine. If you're just doing it to spite the player that beat you straight up, that's AI behavior, not human behavior. It has not place in competitive settings.

And yet, in your examples you say the humans should act like the AI rather than try to win. Dodgy at best.

Complete BS. MP means at least a few human players. There can only be 1 guy who can win, and maybe 1-2 guys who can challenge him. The rest are in trouble, and at best have the chance to decide who wins. These guys absolutely can and SHOULD play king maker the best they can. It could be supporting no. 1 to ensure he wins, or any of the ones who can challenge him.

Your way seems to be that if these guys have no hope of winning, they should just leave the game and leave it to the pros. That's sheer arrogance.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Complete BS. MP means at least a few human players. There can only be 1 guy who can win, and maybe 1-2 guys who can challenge him.

At game start anybody can challenge anybody, unless you just play broken spawn maps.

he rest are in trouble, and at best have the chance to decide who wins.

The rest, "at best", only fall behind if their play quality is low. However, you are drastically underestimating the ability of an underdog civ to utilize surprise. Why WOULDN'T a sensible player play the top 2 off on each other and then back stab in a last ditch effort to win the game? What's wrong with suddenly switching sides when hope is low? But OH NO, I'm seeing an argument where a player would rather this civ simply prop someone up for spite, not try to win! That's a GOOD thing to do? In what twisted universe?

These guys absolutely can and SHOULD play king maker the best they can.

So in other words you're advocating players to not try in a competitive game? Am I reading that correctly? Is that seriously the argument ?

Your way seems to be that if these guys have no hope of winning, they should just leave the game and leave it to the pros. That's sheer arrogance.

From the looks of things, claiming that inferior players somehow SHOULD quit trying and change the outcome of the game in doing so is somehow justifiable, even a good thing to do, ISN'T arrogant? Putting words in people's mouths much by the way? When did *I* tell anyone they should quit?

What are players who aren't "pros" doing in a game with people who are "pros" (hypothetically)?

Ironically (to the point of a major facepalm), it's your argument that suggests that players who are losing should just leave the game outright, rather than mine. A player who simply quits IS kingmaking, in case that hasn't been thought out. 0 resistance, 0 threat of attack, it's only slightly better than sheer gifting of cities. I'm not asking people to give up, YOU are advocating that players give up and not try. What I ask of them is to attempt to win.

That is not AI behavior. That is not behavior of a poor player. It is the behavior of a rational and reasonably skilled human being in a civ game. Reasonable players attempt to win (I find it both sad and amusing that when I pointed this out, you thought of the AI, which rarely actually tries to win). Saying that players should just throw the game out of spite because it looks bad for them? What kind of argument is that?

There's a key difference in the 2 arguments here, and it boils down to a very nice fundamental reality:

- The argument in favor of kingmaking/douchebaggery tells people to stop playing the game.
- I am arguing that players should continue playing the game.

There's no turning that reality around. There's no claiming that somehow the one pushing for players to leave early is ME, because in reality when people stop trying to win and start doing something else in a *competitive* setting, they've stopped playing the game. Telling people they should stop playing the game is arrogant indeed...but I, at least, never did that...